Pseudoscience and bad science in biomedicine: analysis of evidence, health risks, and media dissemination

Pseudoscience (false science) and science based on faulty and biased studies (bad science) produce false or uncertain knowledge, with poor or no evidence. Both represent a health risk: pseudoscience-based therapies because they can replace or delay conventional treatments, and low-quality biomedicine because it promotes medical interventions that can be dangerous. In the press, alternative therapies are less prevalent than low-quality research, while the former tends to be framed negatively and the latter favourably. Both require more thorough and rigorous studies to better understand their negative effects on critical thinking, economics, and health-related decision making.This work is framed within the project Pseudoscience and society in Spain. Analysis of communicative strategies used by pseudoscience for its social insertion: Methods, discourses and users (PYSOCE) (CSO 2014-54614; 2015-2017), funded by the Spanish Spanish Ministry of Ecnomy and Competitiveness - MINECO

Comunicación en tiempos de pandemia: información, desinformación y lecciones provisionales de la crisis del coronavirus

Objetivo: Caracterizar la infodemia asociada a la pandemia de COVID-19 y analizar, en el caso de España, el consumo de información, la confianza en las fuentes, el papel de los medios y la comunicación gubernamental, así como discutir algunas lecciones de comunicación provisionales a partir de los estudios sobre esta y otras pandemias. Método: Búsqueda bibliográfica en PubMed y Scopus, y revisión de los documentos seleccionados con los criterios de relevancia para los objetivos y el ámbito español. Resultados: La pandemia de COVID-19 se ha solapado con una infodemia que ha provocado la mayor avalancha de desinformación conocida y dificultades para encontrar información fiable a casi la mitad de la población. En España, el consumo de información se ha concentrado en los medios tradicionales y WhatsApp. Los medios han ayudado a entender la pandemia y han sido relativamente bien valorados, aunque inspiran menos confianza que en otros países occidentales. El análisis de la comunicación del Gobierno español muestra algunos errores, como la difusión de mensajes demasiado tranquilizadores al inicio de la pandemia, la falta de transparencia, el exceso de información y el modelo de portavocía adoptado. Conclusiones: El conocimiento de la infodemia asociada a la COVID-19 es fragmentario e insuficiente. Aunque la crisis sanitaria no está cerrada para ser debidamente evaluada, es posible extraer algunas lecciones comunicativas provisionales. La complejidad del fenómeno de la desinformación exige considerar la infodemiología como una disciplina científica para conocer la propagación de la desinformación igual que la de la enfermedad.Objective: To characterise the infodemic associated with the COVID-19 and to analyse information consumption, trust in sources, the role of the media and government communication, focusing in the case of Spain, as well as to discuss some provisional communication lessons from studies on this and other pandemics. Method: Bibliographic search in PubMed and Scopus and review of selected documents with the criteria of relevance to the objectives and the Spanish setting. Results: The COVID-19 pandemic has overlapped with an infodemic that has led to the largest avalanche of disinformation known to date and to difficulties in finding reliable information for almost half of the population. In Spain, information consumption has focused on traditional media and WhatsApp; the media were relatively well-rated and helped understand the pandemic, although they are considered less trustworthy in Spain than in other Western countries. The analysis of Spanish government communication shows errors such as overly reassuring messages at the beginning of the pandemic, lack of transparency, excess of information and the spokesperson model adopted. Conclusions: Knowledge about the infodemic associated with COVID-19 is fragmentary and insufficient. Even though the health crisis is not closed for adequate evaluation, some provisional communication lessons can be drawn. The complexity of the disinformation phenomenon requires considering infodemiology as a scientific discipline to understand both the spread of disinformation and the spread of disease

Press citation: the impact of scientific journals and research articles on news media

Las citas periodísticas de revistas, autores y artículos científicos se han utilizado avant la letre para estudiar el impacto de la ciencia en la prensa generalista y algunas características del periodismo científico. En este artículo se revisa el estado de la cuestión y se perfilan los conceptos de cita periodística e impacto mediático por analogía con los de cita científica e impacto científico, estableciendo sus similitudes y diferencias. Se analizan las posibilidades de investigación que ofrece el recuento de citas periodísticas y el desarrollo de indicadores del impacto mediático de la ciencia. El análisis de citas periodísticas pre-senta ventajas frente a las métricas alternativas o altmétricas, pues la prensa es el principal productor de noticias y ofrece un producto más consolidado y con un filtro profesional. También presenta limitaciones, principalmente por la falta de una base de datos de citas periodísticas de las revistas científicas en la prensa generalista internacional.The news media’s citations of journals, authors, and papers have been used avant la letre to study the impact of science in the lay press and some characteristics of scientific journalism. In this paper, the concepts of press citation and media impact are outlined by analogy to those of scientific citation and scientific impact, establishing their similarities and differences. Some possibilities of study using press citations counts are also outlined, as well as the development of new bibliometric indicators to measure the media impact of science. The analysis of press citations has advantages over alternative metrics (altmetrics) because the press is the main news producer and offers a more consolidated product with a professional filter. However, press citations also have some limitations, mainly the lack of a database of press citations from scientific journals in the international lay press

Conciseness vs. completeness in medical news: analysis of Biomedicine related briefs news published by "El País"

Uno de cada tres artículos (33,7%) de El País (2005-2011) en los que se cita alguna de las cinco revistas médicas de mayor impacto científico es un breve —noticia de menos de 300 palabras—. Esta proporción resulta excesiva y preocupante, pues los breves son un tipo de noticia considerado incompatible con la información biomédica completa y rigurosa. Los breves, además, se asocian con un comunicado de prensa más frecuentemente que las noticias más extensas. La cuarta parte (24,1%) de todos los artículos de biomedicina publicados en El País son noticias breves que llevan asociado un comunicado de prensa.One out of three articles (33.7%) published by the Spanish journal El País (2005-2011) that includes a reference to any of the five medical journals with the highest scientific impact is a short news item —a news brief with less than 300 words—. This proportion is excessive and disturbing, as this type of news is considered incompatible with accurate and complete biomedical information. Additionally, news briefs are associated with press releases more frequently than extensive news. One fourth (24.1%) of all biomedical articles published by El País are news brief associated to a press release

Challenges and perspectives in the biomedical information ecosystem

Los nuevos flujos informativos y el derrumbe del monopolio periodístico en la intermediación con el público han creado oportunidades y disfunciones en la información biomédica. A los problemas de la exageración y la comercialización, se han añadido los relacionados con la falta de filtros y la difusión de la mala ciencia. En este artículo se discuten los retos que plantean estos problemas y las perspectivas en la investigación académica, la comunicación y el periodismo.The new information flows and the collapse of the journalistic monopoly in the intermediation with the public, have created opportunities and dysfunctions in biomedical information. To the problems of hype and commercialization, those related to the lack of filters and the diffusion of bad science have been added. This article discusses the challenges posed by these problems and the perspectives in academic research, communication and journalism

Pseudociencia y mala ciencia en biomedicina y comunicación científica. Análisis de los límites entre las falsas ciencias y la ciencia falsa, irreproducible y sesgada

Pseudoscience (false science) and science based on faulty and biased studies (bad science) produce false or uncertain knowledge, with poor or no evidence. Both represent a health risk: pseudoscience-based therapies because they can replace or delay conventional treatments, and low-quality biomedicine because it promotes medical interventions that can be dangerous. In the press, alternative therapies are less prevalent than low-quality research, while the former tends to be framed negatively and the latter favourably. Both require more thorough and rigorous studies to better understand their negative effects on critical thinking, economics, and health-related decision making.This work is framed within the project Pseudoscience and society in Spain. Analysis of communicative strategies used by pseudoscience for its social insertion: Methods, discourses and users (PYSOCE) (CSO 2014-54614; 2015-2017), funded by the Spanish Spanish Ministry of Ecnomy and Competitiveness - MINECO

Microbiome research in general and business newspapers: how many microbiome articles are published and which study designs make the news the most?

The microbiome is a matter of interest for science, consumers and business. Our objective is to quantify that interest in academic journals and newspapers, both quantitatively and by study design. We calculated the number of articles on the microbiome from the total number of biomedicine articles featured in both PubMed and Spanish science news agency SINC, from 2008 to 2018. We used the Factiva database to identify news stories on microbiome papers in three general newspapers (The New York Times, The Times and El País) and three business newspapers (The Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times and Expansión), from 2007 to 2019. Then, we compared news stories with microbiome papers in PubMed, while also analyzing the frequencies of five study design types, both in the newspapers and in the papers themselves. Microbiome papers represented 0.8% of biomedicine papers in PubMed from 2008 to 2018 (increasing from 0.4% to 1.4%), while microbiome news published by SINC represented 1.6% of total biomedical news stories during the same period (increasing from 0.2% to 2.2%). The number of news stories on microbiome papers correlated with the number of microbiome papers (0.91, p < 0.001) featured in general newspapers, but not in business ones. News stories on microbiome papers represented 78.9% and 42.7% of all microbiome articles in general and business newspapers, respectively. Both media outlet types tended to over-report observational studies in humans while under-reporting environmental studies, while the representation of systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials, randomized controlled trials and animal/laboratory studies was similar when comparing newspapers and PubMed. The microbiome is receiving increasing attention in academic journals and newspapers. News stories on the microbiome in general and business newspapers are mostly based on research findings and are more interested in observational studies in humans and less in environmental studies compared to PubMed

How have quality newspapers covered the microbiome? A content analysis of The New York Times, The Times, and El País

Data de publicació electrònica: 21 de gener de 2022The microbiome has captured the attention of researchers and newspapers. We studied how the subject is covered in The New York Times, The Times, and El País via DowJones Factiva (2007–2019), analyzing aspects that included article type, word count, authorship, topic, and citation of researchers, organizations, and journals. We found that 87.6% of newspaper articles (409/467) were news articles and most were longer than 300 words (396; 84.8%), with The New York Times devoting the highest proportion to newspaper articles over 1000 words (99; 45.4%). While basic science findings received the most attention from newspapers from 2007 to 2015, topics related to medicine and nutrition attracted increasing attention from 2016 to 2019. Newspapers showed a domestic preference for their respective researchers, organizations, and journals

Nutrimedia: a novel web-based resource for the general public that evaluates the veracity of nutrition claims using the GRADE approach

The objective of Nutrimedia is to evaluate, based on the scientific evidence, the veracity of nutrition claims disseminated to the public by the media. In this article, we describe the methodology, characteristics and contents of this web-based resource, as well as its web traffic and media impact since it was launched. Nutrimedia uses a systematic process to evaluate common beliefs, claims from newspapers and advertising identified and selected by its research team, as well as questions from the public. After formulating a structured question for each claim, we conduct a pragmatic search, prioritizing guidelines and/or systematic reviews. We evaluate the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, and classify the veracity of each claim into seven categories (true, probably true, possibly true, possibly false, probably false, false, and uncertain). For each evaluation, we develop a scientific report, a plain language summary, a summary of findings table, and, in some cases, a video. From November 2017 to May 2019, we published 30 evaluations (21 were related to foods, six to diets, and three to supplements), most of which were triggered by questions from the public (40%; 12/30). Overall, nearly half of the claims were classified as uncertain (47%; 14/30). Nutrimedia received 47,265 visitors, with a total of 181,360 pages viewed. The project and its results were reported in 84 written media and 386 websites from Spain and 14 other countries, mostly from Latin America. To our knowledge, Nutrimedia is the first web-based resource for the public that evaluates the certainty of evidence and the veracity of nutrition claims using the GRADE approach. The scientific rigor combined with the use of friendly presentation formats are distinctive features of this resource, developed to help the public to make informed choices about nutrition.Nutrimedia has been partially supported by the Spanish Foundation for Science and Technology (FECYT) grants from the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities (FCT-16-11294 and FCT-17-12460). The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript